Just a blogger. Since 2003.

Menu

A story about the modern day ‘feminist movement’

It used to be when you talked to a woman and asked her what the definition of feminism was, the general answer would be “equal rights.” Once upon a time, that was exactly what the feminist movement was about – they pushed for the right to vote, equality in the workforce …

Somewhere along the way in the 60’s, when the resurging feminist movement really started gaining momentum, the group splintered between women who wanted to continue to fight for that equality and women who wanted to go even further in order to be ‘liberated’ from society’s ‘constraints’ (like marriage and traditional family, for example – remember the quote commonly attributed to Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”?). Women’s libbers of the late 60s and all through the 70’s pushed that theme, and we’re seeing the fruits of their ‘labor’ even today (more people choosing to live together than marry, women ‘choosing’ to be lesbians because men are such ‘oppressors’, children being born out of wedlock, etc). In other words, radical women’s libbers from the era earlier mentioned have essentially been a bane to a mature, responsible social culture amongst women.

A young attendee (Samantha Soller, Bucknell University student) to a recent NOW annual conference found out first hand just how far (out) the women’s lib crowd from the 70s had come from their days of bra-burning and filed this report, which I’ll excerpt (caution: some language/terms might not be suitable for young folks to read):

In a workshop designed to determine why young people are hesitant or resistant to identify themselves as feminists, participants were asked to describe what it means to be a feminist. Responses to the question of what a feminist is included “a recognition that men and women are not politically, socially, or economically equal” an acknowledgment that “women are better than men” and an “undermining of certain constructions of gender.” The woman leading the exercise admitted she wasn’t a feminist, “but a womanist, since [she’s] a woman of color.” Boisterous applause filled the room with each description of feminism.

So, why are young women hesitant to call themselves feminists? The instructor told us that feminism is very political, and the negative backlash is “due to a threat to the power struggle.” She also said that “the stigma to feminism is attached to homophobia.”

[…]

Amidst NOW’s “soap opera of feminism” which included braless women, booths with banners declaring “I love female orgasms” women who used to be men, current and former prostitutes, open displays of intimate affection, people referring to NOW President Kim Gandy as “my leader” and an affirmative reply to a question asking if clothing is optional, the “veteran feminists” just couldn’t seem to figure out what was scaring off young people.

The “I’m Not a Feminist, butâ€¦” Workshop was designed to explore feminist stereotypes. The audience determined that the average person thinks feminists are butch, sex-crazed, pro-abortion lesbians who never want to get married or have babies. If NOW members want young women — and the rest of the world — to respect them and their ideas and not accept these stereotypes, they ought not to perpetuate them.

Based on my exposure to feminists at Bucknell, the Conference, however, was exactly as I expected it to be. Women with spiked hair and tattoos walked around clad in tee shirts reading “I love my vibrator.” They detailed inane grievances, like the fact that men get more magazines than women get in prisons. Many also showed their age by expressing anger that back in the ’60s, everyone did drugs and that generation turned out fine, but now people spend years and years in jail for using illegal substances.

The NOW feminist leaders praised women’s studies classes that focus on activism, and denounced people and groups that did not see a “rainbow of genders.” I even learned some of their language and which words are taboo: guys = bad; girls = good; ladies = bad, women = good; gal = always bad; babe = good if hippie singer/songwriter Ani DiFranco says it. Statistics were cited, like those regarding the number of women abused by the sex trade, and I was pleasantly surprised to hear the speaker announce that “the numbers are not reflective of the current status.” At least now they’re admitting their “facts” are, well, not facts.

[…]

Even while tackling tough, important issues, the feminists turned them around. We were discussing the horrors of human sex trafficking and “sex tours” and although the oppression and degradation of women was mentioned, many women in the room were more outraged that the services cater to men, the enemy!

I’ve come across a similar attitude as well on the issue of sex, when talking with the few modern day feministas who will actually have anything to do with a repressed conservative held-back-by-men woman such as myself. Here’s how a typical conversation usually goes:

Feminist: “I think it’s outrageous the way men can get away with having multiple sex partners [note from ST: not at the same time!], but when women do the same, they’re considered ‘loose’, and frowned upon.”

Sister Toldjah: “So what are you saying? That you think it should be encouraged that men refrain from having multiple sex partners so the standard for men and women on that issue might one day be the same?”

F: “No.”

ST: “What do you mean, then?

F: “What I mean is that I want to feel like I can have multiple sex partners, come in and talk about it at my work on Monday amongst the gals, and not have the guys nearby look at me like I’m loose.”

ST: (perplexed) “So you’re saying you want the standards for women to be lowered?”

F: (blinks) “Uhhm, well – no. I just want to be able to sleep with who I want, when I want, be able to talk about it, and be treated just like men are when they brag about it.”

F: (becoming agitated) “No, that is not what I’m saying. I just want the playing field leveled.”

ST: “Yes, you’re saying you want it lowered to be on the same level we have for any male who is promiscuous.”

F: (huffs) “You’re putting words in my mouth.”

ST: (chuckling internally) “Nope – just following what you’re saying to its logical conclusion.”

F: “How’s that?”

ST: “By saying, in terms of sexual encounters, you want women to be treated in the same way men who have lots of casual sex are. Do you think that standard we hold for men on promiscuity is a high one or a low one?”

F: (no answer)

ST: “That’s what I thought. Instead of setting the standard higher for men, you want to lower it for women. Sorry, but if being ‘liberated’ equates to being able to go in to work on Monday to brag about how many sexual partners you had over the weekend, count me out.”

Usually around that point I get accused of being a subservient ultra-right winger who doesn’t appreciate what ‘women before me’ have done to help pave the way for the woman I am today. Which is entirely wrong. I appreciate the women of yesteryear fighting for the right of women to vote. I appreciate the women of yesteryear pushing for equality in the work place (real equality, not the affirmative action stuff). What I don’t appreciate the latter-day uber-fems of the late 60’s and 70’s doing is 1) denigrating the very thought of responsible sexual behavior, 2) not understanding that men are not the root of all evil, 3) encouraging women who became pregnant from irresponsible sexual behavior to abort their ‘inconvienience’, and 4) rejecting the concept of marriage along with the traditional two parent family. I think all of the above have had disastrous consequences on society and (with the ‘aid’ of the “Great Society” programs from the 60’s) have led to so many of the social problems we see today (which I noted earlier). As far as I’m concerned, radical feminists from that era didn’t “pave” any roads for modern day women. They bulldozed them.

Sadly, today’s uber-feminists don’t seek to moderate or tone down such attitudes and/or behavior. As Soller notes, it’s only getting worse. Which is why ‘subservient ultra right wing women’ like myself must never give up the fight against them.

Update I: Wanted to add some book recommendations that discuss this subject more in depth:

22 thoughts on “A story about the modern day ‘feminist movement’”

Braless women, hey, I love braless women. I must be a feminist. Or a lesbian. Or both. I’m so confused!

Good points you make there ST, on a more serious note. And let it be said, not all men think promiscuity and bragging are good. Loose morals are nothing to brag about, male or female, and I’ve always shied away from the types of men who treat women as if they are mere interchangeable sexual convieniences. Same for men who cheat on either spouses or girlfriends. A man raised properly to be a gentleman will always do the same, but as I’ve noted often before most people aren’t raised right. Your point about lowering the bar is excellent, and is at the heart of all too much of the liberal ideology. Ask not how you can raise the morals and performance and responsibility of people, but rather how you can lower standards and excuse bad behavior, that’s the liberal/leftist approach, and it’s at the heart of most of the societal ills we suffer from today.

Actually I don’t think the “I want equal promescuity” trope even stops there. I think they see the strides made in the gay community, and want the “if it feels good, do it” idea to be not just acceptable, but praised. The self styled “identity” groups have found a new way to thwart sociatal imposition of any sort of personal responsibility, and they’re riding it like a Kentucky Derby gelding.

– It’s the old story of the marginal longing for inclusion. I normally have no problem with that, until they set about making their bones by tearing down our traditional institutions, and values, for theit own angradisement.

There will be a huge as in ginormous, epic, Brobdingnagian celebration the day this and dare I say, our ST shall marry. And for the lucky lad, we will all know (to as great an extent as possible) the profound depth of his luck! And his voting record!!!

Yes indeed forest hunter that it would be enormous celebration, well I just thought that I would ask ST I mean nothing ventured nothing gained. Also I would look on that as a honor and a privledge to date ST, she is a very special lady and I stress the word Lady.

I keep coming back to your post ST, and you have definitely managed to crystalize a thought I’ve been having for quite a long time. Liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, Marxists, whatever they choose to call themselves at any particular time, are all about tearing down things that are better than themselves. The military believes in duty, honor, country, and are examples of self sacrifice and bravery. Cowardly, lazy, dishonorable, dishonest people will tear the military down because the military ideal embarasses them, it shows them for what they are. Rather than try and live up to the ideal, they tear it down and try and make their complete failures as human beings the norm, not only accepted but glorified. Country, love of, and patriotism, means recognizing that you owe a debt to the country that offers you these freedoms, and that implies sacrifice, can’t have that. They hate capitalists and business, these people, through hard work and dedication, provide a better life not only for themselves but for others, through job creation and wealth generation, so they hate them because the capitalists make them feel lazy and unproductive. They hate moral people because they make them feel immoral. It’s an entire ideology based on dragging everyone in society down to the lowest common denominator to assuage the guilt and worthlessness they feel. Why else would anyone want government to take care of them when they should be doing it themselves. They may try and cloak themselves in mantras of “we’re doing it for the poor and disadvantaged” when what they should be doing for them is encouraging them to rise above whatever hand life dealt them and excel.

Sev–fine concurrence. I’ve used that exact same argument about transcending one’s base nature, and how it would benefit society vs. the liberal self-gratification as the norm, on a lib blog I like to visit, and for my troubles, I get accused of being a radical Christian taliban wacko. It’s as if all the qualities once considered virtuous and noble are now just fundie nonsense. And though I am indeed a Christian and somewhat fundamental at that, I take great pains to offer “secular” arguments for higher ideals, and they just can’t dig it. (In fact, for fun, I was going to accuse all you folks of being radical Christian talibanic wackos, but changed my mind.) But I saw a movie recently with Robt Dubal, Haley Joel Osmett, and a British actor that everyone would know if I could loosen the brain cramp I’m currently experiencing. But there was a speech Duval gave to the kid about, what one believes in doesn’t have to be true. Good always defeating evil, true love being all that matters, honor, courage, decency. If all of those things were out and out false, they’d still be good things in which to believe. The women spoken of, like almost all libs, have to one degree or another, dispensed with those lofty charateristics and as stated have sought to legitimize crappy behavior. I fail to see how they’ve improved life at all.

Lofty goals and ideals help us aspire to be more than we are, which is what the ultimate goal of humans should be Marshall. The ultimate goal should not be to justify and rationalize animalistic behavior and underachievement. We’s all still be living in caves otherwise. I’m an agnostic, you don’t have to be a Christian taliban Bible thumper to recognize the difference between good and evil, proper and improper in the human condition.

I’d love to believe that, and actually don’t think it should be a problem. The fact is, though I believe the Judeo-Christian tradition is the best source for good values, for the sake of our society it doesn’t really matter what source is used, as long as the good values are lived, encouraged, and taught to our young.

Well, despite the fact I am agnostic, I was raised in the South, protestant/judeo/christian tradtion and values. While I personally do not find religion compelling, I am not hostile to it, nor do I wish to see it restrained or limited, at least non-violent religions. I see much good in the Judeo/Christian tradition and religion, properly practiced, a religion like Christianity that’s based on God’s love for mankind as opposed to Islamic violence and jihad is a good thing. I would never think of attempting to force my views on others, unlike that nimrod Newdow and his ACLU buddies.

I can live with that for the most part. We are aligned on what’s good for our culture. I hope you haven’t dismissed Christianity as an area of research. There’s much to be discovered, even whilst maintaining your current position.

Also, I should note that while it’s obviously possible for people to be ethical and moral and not religious, it’s not probable. Most people, IMO, need religion to help civilize them (again depending on the religion obviously), and teach them ethics and morality. I think, by and large, most human beings need religion, it’s part of the human need. People such as secular humanists, as most of the “leftists” think of themselves, still need a religion. Unfortunately for both them and the rest of the world, they choose Marxism, socialism, environmentalism, or some other -ism (often fascism) and use it for what most other people use religion for, and are as or more fanatical in their blind devotion to it as some are to a particular religion. I think the US would be a lot better off without people treating tree hugging as a religion, or Marxist/Socialist ideology as a religion.